Vodafone TERRIFIED of iPhone - Seeks Restraining Order!

In article
<[email protected]>,
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say ****! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
If any of it happens to come to truth, you don't get credit for it.
You have been told this -- you have to DEMONSTRATE why you think so,
with reasons, and then you get credit only for a correct analysis of
that point of evidence.
Yes, I'll be there to recognize if you are right about any of it -- if
you ever show us anything but a wild guess. And if you have learned to
use just the one name after so long.

> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
Sarcasm time.
Yes, _you_ the boastful child, have seen and understood so much more
than everyone else.
Your analysis (in spite of missing reasons and missing facts and
nothing but wild unsupported opinion) is worth so much to others. Yes,
because everyone finds you so authoritative, with every point an error
or guess, and every claim about an unknown future that only _you_ seem
to be able to see. And you see it so clearly, how can anyone refute it?
You claim that in the future they are FACTS! So, obviously your
perspective has to be right!


How about this -- for every claim you have beaten over the heads of
others, you wager that you are either right or we get to beat over your
head with anything we please?
I'm serious -- make that wager.
You'll do it, because you have blind faith and actually feel the
internet is abvout being anonymous and annoying as much as you want.
It isn't about that. You are expected to answer for your claims.

---

› See More: Vodafone TERRIFIED of iPhone - Seeks Restraining Order!

In article <[email protected]>, DTC
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
>
> Two decades??? Hell, the iPhone will be obsolete, MORON.

That's as stupid as what Ozford wrote.
Obviously, no one is assuming the iPhone will always have its current
state and specs. Sure, the current one will _seem_ obsolete, maybe even
be actually obsolete. But who make a comparison with a model from
several decades earlier and ignores the current one?

Mitch <[email protected]> wrote in news:201120071920489663%[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, DTC
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>> > Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
>>
>> Two decades??? Hell, the iPhone will be obsolete, MORON.
>
> That's as stupid as what Ozford wrote.
> Obviously, no one is assuming the iPhone will always have its current
> state and specs. Sure, the current one will _seem_ obsolete, maybe even
> be actually obsolete. But who make a comparison with a model from
> several decades earlier and ignores the current one?
>

I think what he was trying to say is that many Apple products have come out
to a blaze of glory only to fizzle out in a year or two.

This could easily be one of those.

"Mitch" <[email protected]> stated in post 201120071917559298%[email protected]
on 11/20/07 10:17 PM:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say ****! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
> If any of it happens to come to truth, you don't get credit for it.
> You have been told this -- you have to DEMONSTRATE why you think so,
> with reasons, and then you get credit only for a correct analysis of
> that point of evidence.
> Yes, I'll be there to recognize if you are right about any of it -- if
> you ever show us anything but a wild guess. And if you have learned to
> use just the one name after so long.
>
>> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
> Sarcasm time.
> Yes, _you_ the boastful child, have seen and understood so much more
> than everyone else.
> Your analysis (in spite of missing reasons and missing facts and
> nothing but wild unsupported opinion) is worth so much to others. Yes,
> because everyone finds you so authoritative, with every point an error
> or guess, and every claim about an unknown future that only _you_ seem
> to be able to see. And you see it so clearly, how can anyone refute it?
> You claim that in the future they are FACTS! So, obviously your
> perspective has to be right!
>
>
> How about this -- for every claim you have beaten over the heads of
> others, you wager that you are either right or we get to beat over your
> head with anything we please?
> I'm serious -- make that wager.
> You'll do it, because you have blind faith and actually feel the
> internet is abvout being anonymous and annoying as much as you want.
> It isn't about that. You are expected to answer for your claims.

Can you support that?


--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.

In article <[email protected]>, DTC
<[email protected]> wrote:

> CozmicDebris wrote:
> >> You forgot Apple TV.
> >>
> >
> > And the Motorola ROKR, a joint project betwwen Moto and Apple
>
> I didn't mention the ROKR as he would have diluted Apple's failure as a
> Motorola thing.
Not Motorola alone, but certainly a failure of compromising between the
different developers.
Check out the Wired article -- it mentions many of them. Lots of good
factors listed in that (2005?) article. I'll see if I have it handy...

> Nor the Apple TV as he would have said I never gave it a chance to fly.
Well, if you judge it today, that is true.


ROKR showed that Apple does a LOT better making it's own products than
compromising and working with a partner and many secondary contractors.

In news:[email protected],
CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
> DTC <[email protected]> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
> @nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>>
>> Always???
>>
>> Lets see....
>>
>> 1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>>
>> 2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>>
>> 3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>>
>> 4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>>
>> 5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>>
>> 6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>>
>> 7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>>
>> 8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
>> Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>>
>> 9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
>> $7,499 price been a factor?
>>
>> 10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>>
>> 11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>>
>> 12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You forgot Apple TV.



Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices dominated
the market and killed off the competition? lol

"IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In news:[email protected],
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
>> DTC <[email protected]> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
>> @nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>> Oxford wrote:
>>>> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> Always???
>>>
>>> Lets see....
>>>
>>> 1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>>>
>>> 2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>>>
>>> 3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>>>
>>> 4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>>>
>>> 5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>>>
>>> 6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>>>
>>> 7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>>>
>>> 8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
>>> Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>>>
>>> 9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could
>>> the $7,499 price been a factor?
>>>
>>> 10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>>>
>>> 11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>>>
>>> 12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You forgot Apple TV.
>
>
>
> Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices
> dominated the market and killed off the competition? lol
>
>
>
>

He hasn't finished sweeping the floor at work. The fry machine took
longer than normal.

In article
<[email protected]>,
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> -

Market share in personal computers--much less than a majority.

Market share in pda's--haven't seen any Newtons around lately.

So far as I can tell, the only thing that comes even close to fitting
your description is the iPod.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ness-Net" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> > you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> > think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> > their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> > something interesting.
> >
> >
>
> It's the "posturing" that is what garners the responses.
> The arrogant, **I** know it all, everyone else doesn't piss poor attitude.
>

As I read it, it's the desire of the responders to feel good about
themselves by dumping on a readily available target that's the main
driver for the responses.

But perhaps I am being uncharitable.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

In article
<[email protected]>,
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
> > some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
> > not for most.
> >
> > > Apple has too many patents on the future, so
> > > everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
> >
> > This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> > you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> > think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> > their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> > something interesting.
>
> great, but you are missing the point that the current iPhone is just the
> slightest tip of the product iceberg.

Your original statement, which you didn't quote in the post I'm
responding to, was:

"No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
that's a pure fact."

Are you now agreeing that that that was, not a fact, but nonsense, and
revising your claim to "in the future no cell maker will be able to
compete in the cell market against the new iPhones that will eixst
then?" That's a very different claim.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

In article
<[email protected]>,
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> SJ will own the cell market in that amount of time, he gained 72% of the
> much more competitive MP3 market in 4 years, so commanding the cell
> industry is a piece of cake since there are no strong players.
The music-player market is not "much more competitive" -- and I'll bet
no one has ever told you it was. You just made that up to try to
support your other silly statement.
The music player market is much _less_ competitive than the cell market.

But "no strong players?" Seriously, _everyone_ else in the industry is
stronger than Apple is right now.

> > > vodafone, is freaking out since they lost the apple contract, so they
> > > are crying out... into court... verizon is next to cry wolf, just
> > > watch.
> >
> > Vodafone is questioning the sales practices, not the phone, stupid. Laws
> > in Europe are much different than they are here.
>
> Ah, they are still fearful, sales practices shouldn't matter to a court,
Since when? Have you really never heard of any laws regarding sales,
advertising, contracts, marketing claims, sales reportage, etc.?

> customer demand is what matters and everyone has voted for the iPhone to
> be No. 1 worldwide.
"everyone has voted?"
No, sir, the people you are including in that are apparently just the
ones that actually bought the device. Everyone else didn't buy one. So
your 'everyone' is actually less than 2M out of all cell users in the
world.

> > And why would Verizon cry wolf when they are once again signing up more new
> > customers than AT&T?
>
> Verizon is dying, they lost the iPhone contract because of their own
> bungling, and have been in defensive mode ever since.
They didn't 'lose' the contract -- they didn't have it, because they
didn't want it. The 'defensive mode' you are talking about is natural
-- it is a result of heavy discussion and marketing about iPhone and
responding to demands for better features/phones/services.

> If a cell handset maker doesn't win Apple's good graces, they are no
> longer a viable company.
Huh?
How does Apple have anything at all to do with other cell makers?
They are doing fine -- all they have to do is improve their products.
They don't even have to do the same things Apple has done -- they need
need to try harder.
That doesn't help Apple, but it helps the consumer. (Well, every
consumer except the ones who want basic, simple phones!)

In article
<[email protected]>,
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > in the the country of Germany. They can't stand the iPhone's pressure,
> > > so are seeking court relief before they go under.
> >
> > Go under? Aren't they the largest cell company on the planet?
>
> yes, thanks for proving my point. Vodafone is financially weak and
HUh?
Because they are the largest, they are financially weak?
Is that what you are saying?

> likely can't survive the advancements of the iPhone in their
> non-competitive markets.
You want to explain how it's non-competitive, and how that aspect means
that they can't survive something as basic as an introduction of a
handset from a different maker?

Again, it isn't about the idea that iPhone is a good phone, or even a
popular phone -- you are ignoring all of the factors of business in
order to make silly statements about how good YOU (you alone!) think
iPhone is (and will be) without considering any of the good things
anyone else offers.

In article <[email protected]>, DTC
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> Always???
>
> Lets see....

> 1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
and a long life, for most units.

> 2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
Yes; the wrong product for the time.

> 3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
"never found a market" means that it didn't become know for a major
market -- i.e, major success -- which is like saying "it was just an
everyday, innovative and technically original computer maker."

> 4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
What's your point? Don't most makers change their products hugely, more
often? Apple didn't give up on the stuff in the Cube, just the case
design, because it's early pricing had stained it's marketability.

> 5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
No, it was a technically interesting project, that was too different to
integrate into the current market.

> 6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
No, folded. Great ideas, again, but not applied at the time. I'd bet
EVERYTHING in Taligent is used today, proving that Apple was on the
right track, just too early.

> 7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
Yes, a useless project.

> 8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
> Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
So what? It was another of those partnership projects that shows the
people working with Apple compromise with everyone too much.

> 9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
> $7,499 price been a factor?
Sure; it was built to be a computer for elitists! (Where high price is
an advantage, and it's never going to be made in large numbers!)

> 10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
Pricing killed all the other portable makers. Doesn't reflect badly for
Apple.

> 11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
Before it's time. It was innovative and nicely made, just didn't have
the customers then.

> 12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
True, but a (very visible) minor design problem, easily fixed by Apple
or the consumer or third parties.

You've pasted a list of projects that didn't succeed financially
against a statement that Apple disrupts static markets -- so which of
these are about that?
Clearly, the Oxford troll has no foundation, but I don't even see what
you were trying to say here!

In article <[email protected]>, David
Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Your original statement, which you didn't quote in the post I'm
> responding to, was:
>
> "No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
> that's a pure fact."
Which is still blatantly wrong and misguided, in every way.

> Are you now agreeing that that that was, not a fact, but nonsense, and
> revising your claim to "in the future no cell maker will be able to
> compete in the cell market against the new iPhones that will eixst
> then?" That's a very different claim.
It is a different claim -- different enough that it has nothing to do
with the previous statement.

Your second version is also wrong, for all the _same_ reasons:
there are several things iPhone doesn't do
there are different things each user wants in a pocket device
marketable devices have to make compromises (technology, abilities,
component costs) that mean someone else always gets to do something
better.

Those last two reasons are immutable: they mean that no matter what, no
matter how much you love a new handset, no matter how well it sells,
there can never be just one 'best' product in such a market. Never.


What everyone upset with iPhone hype is missing is that Apple didn't
make a device to make everyone happy -- they never do. They focus on a
narrow set and make the best product for that set. That's what they're
built on, and that's why so many people outside that set never see why
the people on the inside are so entranced.

In article <[email protected]>,
Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Apple introduced a big, slow, locked,
> expensive, proprietary phone

Wow -- you, too, are wrong on almost every point
it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
has close to that screen res.
it isn't particularly slow processing
locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone
it isn't expensive compared to most phones with a high-res screen (and
it's totally foolish to compare to ANYTHING that doesn't have that --
it's the PRIME feature!)
Just what are you calling proprietary?

> into a market dominated by smaller, faster,
> less expensive models

smaller models are missing the major factor that it is built on -- the
one that says it's idiotic to compare to anything else.
Yes, if you are satisfied with a phone that has a 160x160 screen, then
iPhone isn't for you -- because nearly everything iPhone is made to be
good at is nearly impossible on that cheap phone.
(I need not even explain why that major primary factor makes the phone
more expensive, nor why the people who need that feature aren't being
ripped off, right?)

It doesn't mean iPhone is bad, or a bad choice, it means it isn't the
phone for that customer.
It doesn't mean Apple made a bad phone for that customer -- it means
they didn't make anything for that customer at all!